Policy HOU3 – Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build / Custom Build Housing

Comment

Representation ID: 22178

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ms & Mr Jill & I Stevens & Huskisson

Number of people: 2

Agent: JVH Town Planning Consultants Ltd (rep Walton Homes Ltd)

Policy HOU3 Affordable

The requirement for affordable housing is noted , and that the requirement in higher value areas is 30%. It is important that the policy retains the ability for a viability appraisal in all cases , as often the detailed technical requirements of sites are not known until later in the Planning process. The Policy as drafted does include viability assessment based on the national criterion.

Comment

Representation ID: 22192

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Druids Heath Golf Club

Agent: Harris Lamb

The supporting text to the policy at paragraph 6.32 acknowledges that building homes that meet the M4(2) standard are more expensive to build than standard housing and that ones that meet the M4(3) standard involve a significantly increased cost. In building houses to these standards the additional cost is not offset by an increased sales value. It is an additional development cost that has the potential to impact on the viability of development. As such, securing adaptable/accessible homes may well have to be offset against other policy requirements such as delivery of affordable homes, provision of open space or payment of other contributions for example.

In relation to self build homes paragraph 6.29 confirms that there are only 153 individuals on the Self Build Register. This is the equivalent to 0.31% of the 47,837 dwellings proposed to be delivered in the Black Country. In light of the numbers of people that are interested in self build we do not see that there is any justification for 5% of larger sites over 100 dwellings to be required to provide self build plots. Indeed, this would result in a significant over supply of such plots that may not be deliverable due to a lack of demand. The self build plot requirements should be removed from the Policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 22228

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Steve Crutchley

Policy HOU3 – Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build / Custom Build Housing

The supporting text to the policy at paragraph 6.32 acknowledges that building homes that meet the M4(2) standard are more expensive to build than standard housing and that ones that meet the M4(3) standard involve a significantly increased cost. In building houses to these standards the additional cost is not offset by an increased sales value. It is an additional development cost that has the potential to impact on the viability of development. As such, securing adaptable/accessible homes may well have to be offset against other policy requirements such as delivery of affordable homes, provision of open space or payment of other contributions for example.

In relation to self build homes paragraph 6.29 confirms that there are only 153 individuals on the Self Build Register. This is the equivalent to 0.31% of the 47,837 dwellings proposed to be delivered in the Black Country. In light of the numbers of people that are interested in self build we do not see that there is any justification for 5% of larger sites over 100 dwellings to be required to provide self build plots. Indeed, this would result in a significant over supply of such plots that may not be deliverable due to a lack of demand. The self build plot requirements should be removed from the Policy.

Support

Representation ID: 22277

Received: 21/01/2022

Respondent: Miss Jodi Stokes

Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build / Custom Build Housing

6.6 Draft Policy HOU3 (Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build / Custom Build Housing) states that developments of ten homes or more should, where financially viable, provide a range of tenures that will meet the accommodation needs of both existing and future residents, in line with the most recently available information. It is unclear from the mapping at figure 4 whether the Site would sit within a higher or medium value zone.

6.7 We note self-build and custom build plots will only be required on developments of 100 homes or more.

Comment

Representation ID: 22296

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Investin PLC

Agent: Lichfields

3.6 Draft Policy HOU3 states “all developments of ten homes or more should provide a proportion of affordable housing, where this is financially viable. The minimum proportion of affordable housing that should be provided is:
a. On all sites in lower value zones and brownfield sites* in medium value zones: 10% affordable housing;
b. On greenfield sites in medium value zones: 20% affordable housing;
c. On all sites in higher value zones: 30% affordable housing.”
3.7 Investin support the BCA’s differentiated approach to the provision of affordable housing, which is justified by the Black Country Viability & Delivery Study. However, the proposed percentages set out in draft Policy HOU3 are marginally above the recommendations of the Black Country Viability & Delivery Study25.
3.8 Notwithstanding, it is noted that the Study recommends that the BCA “could therefore increase the affordable housing target to 10% in-line with national policy and consider other proactive interventions in the market to deliver the housing” (paragraph 10.24).
3.9 Additionally, the Study notes that the BCA:
“…has achieved 3.5% S106 affordable housing (as proportion of total net homes across the Black Country) over period 2010-20 - equivalent to approximately 5% on eligible sites of 10 homes or more.” (paragraph 10.52)
3.10 This further justifies the need for the BCA to provide for additional housing land supply in order to increase the provision of affordable housing. Such an approach is encouraged by the PPG26: “An increase in the total housing figures included in the plan may need to be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes.”
3.11 Draft Policies CSP1 and HOU1 should therefore be amended to provide additional housing land supply in order to increase the overall provision of affordable housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 22353

Received: 24/01/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Avison Young

We note that this policy requires all developments of ten homes or more to provide a proportion of affordable housing, ranging from 10% to 30% depending on (i) if the site is located in a lower or higher value zone and (ii) if the site is greenfield or brownfield. The policy goes on to say that the tenure and type of affordable homes sought will be determined on a site-by-site basis, based on national planning policy and best available information regarding local housing needs, site surroundings and viability considerations.
Our Client supports the Draft Plan’s desire to see appropriate levels of affordable housing delivered in the Black Country, as well as it’s recognition that the tenure and type of affordable dwelling will vary according to market conditions. This is a critical factor which ensures sites are able to be delivered. However, it considers that it will be important to maintain the same type of flexibility when it comes to the proportion of affordable housing a development will be required to deliver, to allow for changing local market circumstances. It is recommended that this is reflected in the policy wording.

Support

Representation ID: 22406

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

HOU3 - Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build / Custom Build Housing
2.11. We are broadly supportive of the affordable housing policy but would suggest the policy is
slightly reworded to make it absolutely clear that those minimum proportions should only be
required where viability demonstrates it is deliverable. Setting minimum levels are laudable, but
unlikely to make a difference in reality if viability is an issue (as is the case on many BC sites).
2.12. We are broadly supportive of the requirements to make more homes accessible for disabled
people.
2.13. The 5% self-build requirement does raise some concerns, however – related to maintaining
health and safety on large housing sites, as well as in relation to the ultimate control over
phasing. Given the council’s strong reliance on windfall sites – many of which are likely to be self
or custom build, we cannot see why the council can justify requesting a proportion of self-build
on large housing developments that are proposed for allocation.
CC2 – Energy Infrastructure
2.14. We are concerned about the proposal to require a decentralised energy network on sites of 10
dwellings or more. We remain unconvinced that decentralised energy is always appropriate in
anything other than unconstrained, strategic level development sites (000’s rather than 00’s of
dwellings), and certainly not for smaller schemes.
2.15. This is because of the limitations this can place on the ultimate consumer – where decentralised
energy can limit consumer choice in terms of energy provider and where the consumer may
wish to add further energy saving measures – such as solar power, heat pumps, etc.

2.16. It is not clear from this policy why it would be beneficial: district heating systems have had a
mixed result, where residents have had to sign up for long term contracts of 25 years or more.
Efficiencies tend to be a lot lower for small schemes, as the infrastructure costs can be the same,
so the larger the scheme, the more viable it could be. The industry itself is not regulated in the
same way and physical problems with a district heating system or decentralised energy system
can often result in whole areas being without heating or hot water for period of time.
2.17. We would therefore urge the BC authorities to reconsider the wording of this policy to
‘encourage’ the use of such systems, but not to stipulate that they must be used.

Comment

Representation ID: 22411

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields

3.6 Draft Policy HOU3 states “all developments of ten homes or more should provide a proportion of affordable housing, where this is financially viable. The minimum proportion of affordable housing that should be provided is:
a. On all sites in lower value zones and brownfield sites* in medium value zones: 10% affordable housing;
b. On greenfield sites in medium value zones: 20% affordable housing;
c. On all sites in higher value zones: 30% affordable housing.”
3.7 St Philips support the BCA’s differentiated approach to the provision of affordable housing, which is justified by the Black Country Viability & Delivery Study. However, the proposed percentages set out in draft Policy HOU3 are marginally above the recommendations of the Black Country Viability & Delivery Study25.
3.8 Notwithstanding, it is noted that the Study recommends that the BCA “could therefore increase the affordable housing target to 10% in-line with national policy and consider other proactive interventions in the market to deliver the housing” (paragraph 10.24).
3.9 Additionally, the Study notes that the BCA:
“…has achieved 3.5% S106 affordable housing (as proportion of total net homes across the Black Country) over period 2010-20 - equivalent to approximately 5% on eligible sites of 10 homes or more.” (paragraph 10.52)
3.10 This further justifies the need for the BCA to provide for additional housing land supply in order to increase the provision of affordable housing. Such an approach is encouraged by the PPG26: “An increase in the total housing figures included in the plan may need to be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes.”
3.11 Draft Policies CSP1 and HOU1 should therefore be amended to provide additional housing land supply in order to increase the overall provision of affordable housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 22424

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Mr Maurice Sanders

Agent: Avison Young

Policy HOU3 – Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build / Custom Build Housing
We note that this policy requires all developments of ten homes or more to provide a proportion
of affordable housing, ranging from 10% to 30% depending on (i) if the site is located in a lower or
higher value zone and (ii) if the site is greenfield or brownfield. The policy goes on to say that the
tenure and type of affordable homes sought will be determined on a site-by-site basis, based on
national planning policy and best available information regarding local housing needs, site
surroundings and viability considerations.
Our Client supports the Draft Plan’s desire to see appropriate levels of affordable housing
delivered in the Black Country, as well as it’s recognition that the tenure and type of affordable
dwelling will vary according to market conditions. However, it considers that it will be important
to maintain the same type of flexibility when it comes to the proportion of affordable housing a
development will be required to deliver, to allow for changing local market circumstances. It is
recommended that this is reflected in the policy wording.

Object

Representation ID: 22494

Received: 24/01/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Avison Young

Paragraphs 3.49-3.50 Flexibility is requested "when
it comes to the proportion of affordable housing a development will be required to deliver, to allow for changing local market circumstances. It is recommended that this is reflected in the policy wording."

Comment

Representation ID: 22562

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: DNA Investment Holdings Ltd

Agent: Lavata Group Ltd

Policy HOU3 – Delivering Affordable Housing, Wheelchair Accessibility

The provision of affordable housing as well as housing built for wheelchair users is critical for the Black Country to provide adequate homes for all. We support the requirement for different levels of affordable housing based on the values of the area in which development is located. It is wholly appropriate for those areas of low value to provide a lower amount, as well as brownfield sites with low to medium values to provide the same lower amount. We note that Figure 5 shows the location of the various value zones in the Black Country. The majority of the Black Country is low to medium value. Walsall has a mix of all three zones, which seem to be fairly evenly split. Viability has always been a challenge in the Black Country and the need to differentiate land values across such a large area is a welcomed move and demonstrates that this policy has been prepared positively and with deliverability of sites in mind. We also acknowledge that flexible arrangements will be sought, thought planning agreements (S106), wherever possible to allow for changing market conditions in the future, and agree this flexible approach is appropriate as this works when markets fall as well as rise.

We are also supportive of the need for wheelchair accessible units to be based on the viability of a development rather than a blanket requirement across the Black Country.

Comment

Representation ID: 23062

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Savills

Policy HOU3 – Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build/ Custom Build Housing
Policy HOU3 requires 30% affordable housing to be delivered on major greenfield sites. We support reference to viability within the policy and that the tenure and type of affordable homes sought will be determined on a site by site basis.
The Policy requires greenfield sites in high value zones to deliver 15% of their homes in accordance with M4(3) regulations and all remaining homes should meet M4(2) regulations. The PPG states that Councils have the option to “set additional technical requirements exceeding the minimum standards required by Building Regulations in respect of access” where there is a justified need for this requirement (Reference ID: 56-002-20160519). The NPPF also requires all policies to underpinned by relevant and up to date evidence which should be adequate, proportionate and focused on supporting and justifying planning policies (paragraph 31). The PPG (Reference ID: 56-005- 20150327 to 56-01120150327) sets out the evidence necessary to justifying a policy requirement for optional standards which includes:
• the likely future need;
• the size, location, type and quality of dwellings needed;
• the accessibility and adaptability of the existing stock; • variations in needs across different housing tenures: and • viability.
The PPG does not state what level of requirement should be required within Local Plan policies. It is considered that in requiring all new dwellings to be built to the Category M4(2) standards, it will result in larger dwellings and in turn less dwellings being delivered on sites. The NPPF is clear that planning policies should support development that makes efficient use of land (Paragraph 124). Furthermore, the BCA is constrained by Green Belt with limited brownfield redevelopment opportunities (Urban Capacity Report 2021) and the BCA is claiming that it cannot meet its own housing needs (NPPF Paragraph 125). The Council should be making the most efficient use of land on the Green Belt sites proposed to be released in order to avoid significant Green Belt release in future Local Plan Reviews. We therefore consider that the requirement to build all dwellings to Category M4(2) standards will be not be consistent with national planning policy.
The Policy also requires that on sites of 100+ dwellings, where there is a need for self-build and custom build plots on the Council’s register, at least 5% of plots should be made available for self-build or custom build or sufficient to match the current number on the register if lower. We object to this requirement and do not consider that the Council has provided sufficient evidence to support this requirement. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (Reference ID: 57-025-201760728) sets out ways in which the Council should consider supporting self and custom build which includes: developing policies in their Local Plan for self-build and custom housebuilding and “engaging with landowners who own sites that are suitable for housing and encouraging them to consider self-build and custom housebuilding” [Savills emphasis]. There is no requirement in the PPG for self or custom build plots to be provided as part of allocations and landowners should only be ‘encouraged to consider’ promoting their land for self and custom build housing.
Paragraph 6.29 states that there is a total of 32 individuals registered on Walsall’s self-build register. The register may provide an indication of the level of interest, but this needs to be analysed in further detail to uncover the specific requirements of respondents (e.g. type of property and location desired). Additionally, if all strategic sites proposed in Walsall are delivered (5,418 dwellings) and they all provide 5% self-build plots, this would equate to 271 self-build plots which is significantly greater than the number on Walsall’s housing register.
Furthermore, this register does not test whether people have the means to acquire the land and privately construct their own property. Furthermore, there are also practical issues to consider in providing self and custom building housing plots on an allocated site. For example, the day to day operation of such sites and consideration of potential health and safety issues of having multiple individual construction sites within one development. Other considerations are where a site being brought forward by a national housebuilder is the subject of a design code, what approach in the Council expecting self-build projects to take?
The provision of self or custom build plots should be the subject of discussion with those who have expressed an interest, and once the Council has an understanding of the type and range of sites that are sought allocations (for example in the form of clusters) should be identified and allocated as self and custom build opportunities around the BCA.

Object

Representation ID: 23115

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraphs 4.11 - The evidence does not justify a 'minimum 20%' contribution.

Object

Representation ID: 23116

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 4.12 - 4.14 - The reliance on the Black Country Housing Market Assessment 2021 (BCHMA) for evidence of the demand for accessible, adaptable and wheelchair accessible homes over the next 19 years does not take account that the majority of the demand is likely to be from people already housed. It is unclear how the standards set out in the policy have been derived.

Object

Representation ID: 23117

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: St Modwen SL&R

Agent: RPS

Paragraph 4.15 - 4.16 - The policy seeks 5% custom and self build housing on plots with development over 100 dwellings. Current demand is evidenced as being 32 plots for Walsall but the policy would generate 272. The 5% requirement is not justified.

Object

Representation ID: 23214

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Heyfield Development

Agent: Harris Lamb

Affordable Housing

In addition, the demand for affordable housing is a significant factor that should be considered in establishing the housing requirement. Paragraph 6.6 of the BCHMA advises that there is a requirement for 867 affordable properties per year in the Black Country. This is the equivalent of approximately 21.6% of the annualised housing requirement (including the proportion of the housing requirement that will be directed outside of the Plan area). It is expected that the principal way of delivering this affordable housing would be via Section 106 agreements.


Policy HOU3 – Delivering Affordable Housing, Wheelchair Accessibility and Self Build/Custom Build Housing, advises that 10% affordable housing will be sought on sites in lower value areas and brownfield sites in medium value zones. 20% affordable housing will be sought on greenfield sites and in medium value area. On all sites in higher value areas 30% affordable housing will be sought. That being the case, only the sites in the higher value areas deliver more than 21.6% affordable housing.

The draft Plan does not identify what proportion of the housing requirement is expected to take place in each of these zones. However, paragraph 6.4 of the Plan advises that 81% of the housing requirement is expected to be provided on brownfield land, and 19% on greenfield land. That being the case, this strongly suggests that the affordable housing policy within the Plan will be incapable of delivering a sufficient quantum of affordable housing to meet their identified need.

We are not aware of any assessment that seeks to establish the relationship between the quantum of affordable housing required by the BCHMA, and the likely level of affordable housing that it is expected by Policy HOU3 of the Plan will deliver. This is a key piece of evidence that is missing from the emerging Plan. An increase to the minimum housing requirement may be required to ensure that a sufficiently supply of affordable housing is provided.

Summary

Drawing these matters together, it is our view that the housing requirement within the plan is not justified given that it is below the minimum Standard Method requirement, and there appears to have been no supporting work undertaken to establish if there is a requirement for an uplift to the minimum Standard Method Housing target on economic of affordability grounds.

Support

Representation ID: 23230

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Heyfield Development

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy HOU3 – Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build / Custom
Build Housing

This policy sets different targets for delivering M4(3) homes, with lower value areas not required to provide any. Higher value areas can accommodate these and this is another benefit of releasing Green Belt sites.

Object

Representation ID: 23233

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Member of Parliament

The average spend by a first time buyer across England stands at £205,246. Average house prices in Aldridge, Pelsall and Streetly all stand above the average first time buyer rate and the West Midlands average.
Indeed, in the case of two of the proposed sites (Aldridge Road/Queslett Road East and Stonnall Road) average prices based on the West Midlands average are between 51% and 110% higher.
Several of the current proposed sites will not manage to meet the stated objectives in these strategic priorities, they could in fact further fuel levels of unaffordability as this proposed plan will not provide the necessary housing mix.

Comment

Representation ID: 23291

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Redrow Homes Ltd

Agent: Harris Lamb

Policy HOU3 – Delivering Affordable Housing, Wheelchair Accessibility and Self Build/Custom Build Housing, advises that 10% affordable housing will be sought on sites in lower value areas and brownfield sites in medium value zones. 20% affordable housing will be sought on greenfield sites and in medium value area. On all sites in higher value areas 30% affordable housing will be sought. This approach has been adopted for viability reasons. That being the case, only the sites in the higher value areas deliver more than 21.6% affordable housing. It is appreciated that affordable housing will be provided on sites allocated for development outside of the Plan area allocated for development to support the growth of the Black Country. However, as these sites are not known there is no certainty as to how much affordable housing they will deliver. This is not, therefore, a consideration at this time.

The draft Plan does not identify what proportion of the housing requirement is expected to take place in each of these zones. However, paragraph 6.4 of the Plan advises that 81% of the housing requirement is expected to be provided on brownfield land and 19% on greenfield land. That being the case the majority of the sites will provide either 10% or 20% affordable housing (if this is viable). This strongly suggests that the affordable housing policy within the Plan will be incapable of delivering a sufficient quantum of affordable housing to meet their identified need.







We are not aware of any assessment that seeks to establish the relationship between the quantum of affordable housing required by the BCHMA, and the likely level of affordable housing that it is expected Policy HOU3 of the Plan will deliver. This is a key piece of evidence that is missing from the emerging Plan. An increase to the minimum housing requirement may be required to ensure that a sufficiently supply of affordable housing is provided.

Drawing these matters together, it is our view that the housing requirement within the draft Plan is not justified given that it is below the minimum Standard Method requirement, and there appears to have been no supporting work undertaken to establish if there is a requirement for an uplift to the minimum Standard Method housing target on economic or affordability grounds.

Comment

Representation ID: 23312

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Redrow Homes Ltd

Agent: Harris Lamb

The supporting text to the policy at paragraph 6.32 acknowledges that building homes that meet the M4(2) standard are more expensive to build than standard housing and that ones that meet the M4(3) standard involve a significantly increased cost. In building houses to these standards the additional cost is not offset by an increased sales value. It is an additional development cost that has the potential to impact on the viability of development. As such, securing adaptable/accessible homes may well have to be offset against other policy requirements such as delivery of affordable homes, provision of open space or payment of other contributions for example.

In relation to self build homes paragraph 6.29 confirms that there are only 153 individuals on the Self Build Register. This is the equivalent to 0.31% of the 47,837 dwellings proposed to be delivered in the Black Country. In light of the numbers of people that are interested in self build we do not see that there is any justification for 5% of larger sites over 100 dwellings to be required to provide self build plots. Indeed, this would result in a significant over supply of such plots that may not be deliverable due to a lack of demand. The self build plot requirements should be removed from the Policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 23329

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bloor Homes

POLICY HO3- DELIVERING AFFORDABLE, WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE AND SELF-BUILD/CUSTOM BUILDING HOUSING
Affordable Housing
Proposed Policy HOU3 sets out the Black Country Authorities (‘BCA’) requirements in relation to the
proportion of affordable housing. The minimum poportion of affordable housing that should be provided is 10% on all sites in lower value zones and brownfield sites in medium value zones; 20% on greenfield sites in medium value zones; and 30% on all sites in higher value zones. The tenure and type of affordable homes sought will be determined on a site by site basis, based on national planning policy and best available information regarding local housing needs, site surroundings and viability considerations.

BHL recognise the importance of providing an appropriate mix and amount of affordable housing as
part of meeting BCA’s identified housing needs, and in particular recognise the significance of meeting the housing needs of specific groups within society in accordance with NPPF paragraph 61. Although BHL supports BCA’s differentiated approach, it is noted that the proposed percentages are in excess of the recommendations of the Black Country Viability and Delivery Study. Further clarification on this is requested.

Additionally, in accordance with paragraph 16(d) of NPPF 2021, policies should be unambiguous and
clearly written, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals. BHL considers that the type and tenure of affordable housing sought is ambiguous: BCA should provide further clarification of its requirements which should be justified by supporting evidence.

Notwithstanding the above points, the requirements in relation to affordable housing delivery and mix, will need to be tested alongside the other policy requirement set out in the plan through a full Viability Assessment that should seek to ensure that the total cumulative cost of all relevant policies will not undermine deliverability of the plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 23331

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Wheelchair Accessible Housing
Proposed Policy HOU3 requires that all developments of 10 or more dwellings should provide a proportion of wheelchair accessible housing, where this is financially viable. The minimum proportion that should be provided is 20% of dwellings to meet M4(2) on all brownfield sites and on greenfield sites in lower value zones; and 15% of dwellings to meet M4(3) and all remaining dwellings to meet M4(2) on greenfield sites in medium or higher value zones. Other than reasons of financial viability, these requirements will only be reduced where it is not practically achievable given the site’s physical characteristics; site specific factors meaning that step-free access cannot be achieved; and dwellings
that are located on the first floor or above of a non-lift serviced multi-storey development.

Whilst BHL support the provision of high-quality, well-designed and accessible housing as an integral part of housing development to meet the area’s identified housing needs, the inclusion of requirements for M4(2) and M4(3) standard dwellings within Local Plans must be robustly justified with credible evidence. BHL considers that upon review of the Black Country SHMA (2021), the evidence does not justify BCA’s proposed policy approach in relation to M4(2) and M4(3) properties. The SHMA does not demonstrate that the needs of the Black Country differ substantially to those
across the West Midlands or England.

Furthermore, BHL wish to emphasise that M4(2) and M4(3) dwellings are currently ‘optional standards’. Indeed, if the Government had intended that the evidence of an ageing population alone justified the adoption of optional standards, this would be mandatory in the Building Regulations. BHL consider that if BCA wish to impose a policy requirement for accessible and adaptable
dwellings, this should be done in accordance with paragraph 130(f) of the NPPF 2021 and Footnote 49
of the latest iteration of the NPPG. Footnote 49 states "that planning policies for housing should make use of the Government’s optional technical standards for accessible and adaptable housing where this would
address an identified need for such properties”.
Moreover, BHL has concerns that the provision of a substantial level of M4(2) and M4(3) dwellings,
particularly in development sites that deliver earlier on in the plan period, will result in such units being occupied by those who do not require housing of this kind, or will remain empty until an end user is identified. It is BHL’s position that the requirement for M4(2) and M4(3) should be based on the specific demand for housing of that kind at the time of an application’s determination. The provision of specialist housing of this nature may also make it difficult to achieve the BCA’s yield and density aspirations for allocated and windfall housing sites.

Object

Representation ID: 23332

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Self build/custom build housing
Policy HOU3 states that on developments of 100 or more dwellings, where there is currently a need for self-build and custom build plots identified in the relevant LPA register, at least 5% plots should be made available for self-build or custom build, or sufficient to match the current number of the register if lower. Any plots that have not been sold after 12 months of appropriate
marketing will revert to the developer to build. BHL object to the inclusion of this part of the policy. In accordance with paragraph 62 of the NPPF 2021 and under The Self and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016), the responsibility for keeping a self-build and custom housebuilding register falls to “relevant authorities” i.e. District Councils, County Councils, in order to support development opportunities for self-build and custom housebuilding by increasing awareness among landowners, builders and developers of the level and nature of the demand for self-build and custom
housebuilding in the local area. BHL wish to emphasise that there is currently no legislative or national policy basis for imposing an obligation on landowners or developers to set aside 5% of plots on sites of more than 100 dwellings. BHL considers that it is the responsibility of the BCA, not landowners and developers, to ensure sufficient permissions are given to meet demand. BHL also seek further clarification on the justification of the identified threshold.

Additionally, as stated in the NPPG, the self-build register only needs to include the name and address of the association/lead contact and the number of serviced plots of land in the relevant authority’s area the association are seeking to acquire: no information is requested on the financial resources for each association. Therefore, BHL consider that the demand of the 153 individuals on the BCA register could in fact be an expression of interest rather than actual demand.

Moreover, in addition to increasing the complexity of an already complicated construction process, BHL consider that it is extremely unlikely that self and custom build serviced plots on new housing developments of over 100 dwellings will appeal to those wishing to build their own home. BHL consider that BCA should include an alternative policy to allocate small parcels of land
specifically for self-build and custom housebuilding. Further clarification is also requested on the ambiguous term of “appropriate marketing”.

Support

Representation ID: 23356

Received: 30/09/2021

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

HOU3 - Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build / Custom Build Housing
2.10. We are broadly supportive of the affordable housing policy but would suggest the policy is
slightly reworded to make it absolutely clear that those minimum proportions should only be
required where viability demonstrates it is deliverable. Setting minimum levels are laudable, but
unlikely to make a difference in reality if viability is an issue (as is the case on many BC sites).
2.11. We are broadly supportive of the requirements to make more homes accessible for disabled
people.
2.12. The 5% self-build requirement does raise some concerns, however – related to maintaining
health and safety on large housing sites, as well as in relation to the ultimate control over
phasing. Given the council’s strong reliance on windfall sites – many of which are likely to be self
or custom build, we cannot see why the council can justify requesting a proportion of self-build
on large housing developments that are proposed for allocation.

Support

Representation ID: 23422

Received: 15/02/2022

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy HOU3 (Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build/Custom Build Housing) states that all developments of ten homes or more should provide a proportion of affordable housing, where this is financially viable. The minimum proportion of affordable housing that should be provided is 20% affordable housing on greenfield sites in medium value zones (where the Site is located). Further, Part 3 of Draft Policy HOU3 advises that the tenure and type of affordable homes sought will be determined on a site-by-site basis, based on national planning policy and best available information regarding local housing needs, site surroundings and viability considerations. L&Q Estates support this policy and the collaborative approach to identifying site-specific affordable housing requirements, including tenure and type of affordable homes to be provided on-site.

7.12 With regard to National Wheelchair Accessibility Standards, Part 4 of Draft Policy HOU3 requires 15% of homes on greenbelt sites in medium or higher value zones to meet the optional Building Regulations Requirement M4(3): Wheelchair User Dwellings and all remaining homes to meet the optional Building Regulations Requirement M4(2): Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings. L&Q Estates are supportive of this approach and consider that such requirements can be met on the Yieldfields site.

7.13 With regard to Self-Build and Custom Build plots, Part 6 of Draft Policy HOU3 states that on developments of 100 homes or more, where there is currently a need for self-build and custom build plots identified in the self-build and custom build register for the local authority where the site is located, at least 5% of plots should be made available for self-build or custom build, or sufficient to match the current number on the register if lower. We support this policy, which aligns with the aims of Paragraph 62 of the NPPF in terms of providing opportunities for people wishing to commission or build their own homes. Further, Part 6 goes on to state that any plots that have not been sold after 12 months of appropriate marketing will revert to the developer to build. L&Q Estates consider that Yieldfields can deliver 5% self-build and custom build plots. However, we strongly support the fall-back option of reverting any unsold self-build plots to the developer to build should any of these plots not be sold

Object

Representation ID: 23579

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Urban Remediation Ltd

1.4. POLICY HOU3 DELIVERING AFFORDABLE, WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE AND SELF BUILD/CUSTOM BUILD HOUSING
1.4.1. Clarification is required concerning the phrasing of Policy HOU3 Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build/Custom Build Housing regarding the approach to affordable housing percentages and exceptions that apply. Furthermore, the evidence for the proportion of affordable housing contributions appears to be without merit.
1.4.2. We wish to highlight the following paragraphs of Policy HOU3.
1.4.3. Affordable Housing, Paragraph 2 states 'All developments of ten homes or more should provide a proportion of affordable housing, where this is financially viable. The minimum proportion of affordable housing that should be provided is:' [etc].
1.4.4. The clarification of wording relates to the emphasis of 'financially viable' and the suggested phrasing is as follows 'All developments of ten homes or more should provide a proportion of affordable housing. The minimum proportion of affordable housing that should be provided where this is financially viable is:' [etc].
1.4.5. Affordable Housing, Paragraph 2c notes that for higher value zones, it is 30% affordable housing.
1.4.6. The evidence base seems to be contrary to this. The Black Country Housing Market Assessment (Final Report) (March 2021) states at paragraph 8.7
'The total annual affordable housing need in the Black Country of 867 per year (as set out in Chapter 6) represents 21.6% of the annual dwelling growth of 4,019 in the housing market area as assessed using the revised Standard Method. It would be reasonable to expect this proportion of new housing as affordable to be delivered on a large housing site in the Black Country, where a figure of 25% would be plausible (subject to viability). The Councils can therefore be confident that the affordable housing need identified in the model will be addressed by the dwelling growth identified by the Standard Method and no adjustment is required to this figure'.
1.4.7. Accordingly, there should be a presumption to retain 25% as set out for Dudley Borough Development Strategy (Adopted March 2017). Policy L3 Affordable Housing in New Developments of which notes a 25% value of the total units. Any proportionality of affordable housing contribution should not be based on the land value mapping which at best can only be regarded as a general rule of thumb. It should be taken from the financial viability report specific to each development site which will in any event, take account of market forces and recognised land values.
1.4.8. Financial Viability Assessments, Paragraph 7 states 'On sites where applying the affordable housing or wheelchair accessibility requirements can be demonstrated to make the development unviable, the maximum proportion of such housing will be sought that will not undermine the viability of the development, subject to achieving optimum tenure mix and securing other planning obligations necessary for the development to gain planning permission'.
1.4.9. The Policy is inclusive of affordable housing, wheel chair and self build/custom build. Therefore, the wording should be altered (bold type indicates additional text) as follows: On sites where applying the affordable housing or wheelchair accessibility requirements or self build and custom build plots can be demonstrated to make the development unviable, the maximum proportion of such housing will be sought that will not undermine the viability of the development, subject to achieving optimum tenure mix and securing other planning obligations necessary for the development to gain planning permission.

Comment

Representation ID: 23581

Received: 08/10/2021

Respondent: Urban Remediation Ltd

Agent: Bright & Associates

1.4. POLICY HOU3 DELIVERING AFFORDABLE, WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE AND SELF BUILD/CUSTOM BUILD HOUSING
1.4.1. Clarification is required concerning the phrasing of Policy HOU3 Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build/Custom Build Housing regarding the approach to affordable housing percentages and exceptions that apply. Furthermore, the evidence for the proportion of affordable housing contributions appears to be without merit.
1.4.2. We wish to highlight the following paragraphs of Policy HOU3.
1.4.3. Affordable Housing, Paragraph 2 states 'All developments of ten homes or more should provide a proportion of affordable housing, where this is financially viable. The minimum proportion of affordable housing that should be provided is:' [etc].
1.4.4. The clarification of wording relates to the emphasis of 'financially viable' and the suggested phrasing is as follows 'All developments of ten homes or more should provide a proportion of affordable housing. The minimum proportion of affordable housing that should be provided where this is financially viable is:' [etc].
1.4.5. Affordable Housing, Paragraph 2c notes that for higher value zones, it is 30% affordable housing.
1.4.6. The evidence base seems to be contrary to this. The Black Country Housing Market Assessment (Final Report) (March 2021) states at paragraph 8.7
'The total annual affordable housing need in the Black Country of 867 per year (as set out in Chapter 6) represents 21.6% of the annual dwelling growth of 4,019 in the housing market area as assessed using the revised Standard Method. It would be reasonable to expect this proportion of new housing as affordable to be delivered on a large housing site in the Black Country, where a figure of 25% would be plausible (subject to viability). The Councils can therefore be confident that the affordable housing need identified in the model will be addressed by the dwelling growth identified by the Standard Method and no adjustment is required to this figure'.
1.4.7. Accordingly, there should be a presumption to retain 25% as set out for Dudley Borough Development Strategy (Adopted March 2017). Policy L3 Affordable Housing in New Developments of which notes a 25% value of the total units. Any proportionality of affordable housing contribution should not be based on the land value mapping which at best can only be regarded as a general rule of thumb. It should be taken from the financial viability report specific to each development site which will in any event, take account of market forces and recognised land values.
1.4.8. Financial Viability Assessments, Paragraph 7 states 'On sites where applying the affordable housing or wheelchair accessibility requirements can be demonstrated to make the development unviable, the maximum proportion of such housing will be sought that will not undermine the viability of the development, subject to achieving optimum tenure mix and securing other planning obligations necessary for the development to gain planning permission'.
1.4.9. The Policy is inclusive of affordable housing, wheel chair and self build/custom build. Therefore, the wording should be altered (bold type indicates additional text) as follows: On sites where applying the affordable housing or wheelchair accessibility requirements or self build and custom build plots can be demonstrated to make the development unviable, the maximum proportion of such housing will be sought that will not undermine the viability of the development, subject to achieving optimum tenure mix and securing other planning obligations necessary for the development to gain planning permission

Comment

Representation ID: 23601

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

Policy HOU3 — Affordable Housing
Please see our comment on affordable housing delivery in our response to Policy CSPI .
summary:
• The levels of affordable housing need in the Black Country and Walsall are very
significant. The Black Country Housing Market Assessment (BCHMA) identifies a net
need for 867 affordable homes per annum, including 154 per annum in Walsall. There
are 5,159 households on each individual Council's housing register.
• Neither the plan nor the evidence base grapples with how affordable housing needs
will be met. The evidence base should seek to identify how much affordable housing
will be delivered from the planned housing supply.
• Continued reliance upon existing sources of supply from the urban areas will deliver
levels of affordable housing that fall substantially below identified needs.
A step change in affordable housing delivery needed. This means allocating
additional sites which can viably deliver affordable housing in the plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 43823

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: HIMOR Group

Agent: Emery Planning

8. Policy HOU3 Affordable Housing
8.1 Please see our comment on affordable housing delivery in our response to Policy CSP1. In
summary:

The levels of affordable housing need in the Black Country and Walsall are very
significant. The Black Country Housing Market Assessment (BCHMA) identifies a net
need for 867 affordable homes per annum, including 154 per annum in Walsall. There
are
Neither the plan nor the evidence base grapples with how affordable housing needs
will be met. The evidence base should seek to identify how much affordable housing
will be delivered from the planned housing supply.
Continued reliance upon existing sources of supply from the urban areas will deliver
levels of affordable housing that fall substantially below identified needs.
A step change in affordable housing delivery is needed. This means allocating
additional sites which can viably deliver affordable housing in the plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 43827

Received: 04/10/2021

Respondent: Mr CLIVE HEYWOOD

The Black Country does not need more larger homes but is in short supply of affordable homes and affordable renting opportunities for the less well off residents. The plan does not adequately plan for this